[CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

Hi Max et al.,

I’ve just replied to Michel’s message explaining that qualifying clauses are not the only place where external qualifiers are used in conjunction with minimum-clade-definitions.

We put in “normally” not because we know of exceptions but because we don’t want to assume that there are no exceptions.

It would make sense to clarify the intended meaning of “extant” immediately after stating the definition, but I don’t think this is something that we want/need to require.

What happens if a name is explicitly stated as applying to a crown or total clade depends on the specifics of the definition and situation (and there are several possibilities).  However, in the case that raised some of these issues, it has little to no effect.  Archosauria := the smallest crown clade containing Alligator mississippiensis and Compsognathus longipes.  The extinct taxon Compsognathus longipes is used instead of an extant bird species to satisfy Recommendation 11A, but in the context of most recent phylogenetic hypotheses, the name will apply to the same clade as it would if an extant bird species had been used instead.

Kevin

From: CPN <cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu> on behalf of Max Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br>
Date: Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:22 AM
To: Phil Cantino <cantino at ohio.edu>
Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>
Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)


  Hi all,

  As Michael, I am also concerned about "minimum-clade definition with multiple external specifiers, including those used in qualifying clauses".

  As I understand it, external specifiers will appear in minimal clade definitions only as qualifying clauses. So the "including", and even the "specially" proposed by Michael, would be inappropriate.

  If I am missing something here, disregard my note, if not, we should rephrase this part of the text.


  Two other points:

  1 - In "(only the “and” operator would normally be used in definitions employing multiple internal specifiers)". Is this more clearly stated in another part of the Code?
  As above, if we are using "normally", we should explain the exceptions, perhaps providing examples of cases where this does not apply, i.e. where “or” operator is used in the definition of multiple internal specifiers.

  2 - In both total- and crown-clades where it is written: "If this kind of definition is used and “extant” is intended to mean anything other than extant on the publication date of the definition".
  My concern is that the definitions do not normally include the word "extant", they just mention the specifiers (extant or not). So, where would this information appear?

  This seems not to be an issue when the definition explicitly states that it applies a total/crown clade (but see below).
  Yet, a definition using a Dodo will not be implicitly crown/total unless it is stated somewhere that such specifier was extant "at a particular time in human history ". Again, where should this information appear?

  BTW, what happens if a total/crown clade is defined explicitly stating that is applies a total/crown clade, but than include "pre-historic" taxa as specifiers?


  Sorry to bring all these issues. Forget them if they were already discussed prior to my enrolment in the CPN.

  max







2018-06-18 12:58 GMT-03:00 Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>:
Dear CPN members,

Kevin and I are proposing the attached additions to Article 9 to clarify points of confusion that we became aware of in the process of editing Phylonyms contributions.  These are probably the last changes in the code that we will propose before the manuscript is finalized.

If you have comments or questions, please send them to the listserv by June 30.  If there is no ongoing discussion at that point, I will call for a vote.   Please do not vote yet, in case there is discussion before June 30.

Best regards,
Phil



--
Max Cardoso Langer Ph.D. (Bristol, UK)
Departamento de Biologia
Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciencias e Letras de Ribeirao Preto
Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP)
Av. Bandeirantes  3900
14040-901     Ribeirao Preto,  SP,  BRAZIL

Phone: +55 16 3315 3844
FAX: +55 16 3315 4886
http://sites.ffclrp.usp.br/paleo/

A semântica é o último refúgio dos canalhas
.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20180625/1e9be1dc/attachment-0001.html>